APS department paying its employees' FBT?

I must say, all this talk of paid parking is really making me appreciate my free, reserved underground parking spot about 5m from the door to our premises. It’s particularly sweet on those baking summer days when my vehicle is cool and pleasant in the evening.

PM&C are allocated to SES, with a reasonable number for staff. I believe these were balloted when they moved in, and are currently managed on on a wait-list basis. If you’re there long enough – you’ll get a spot.

Primal said :

Free underground parking?

What is this magical place? Department of the Lollipop Kingdom???

If you could get into DFAT early enough, you could score one of the non-reserved underground parks. The SES types all have reserved spots, but there are several rows of open spots. if unsuccessful, you proceed to the open boom gate park over the road. Finance at the Minter Ellison have a boom gate, ditto Communications.

I worked in a private firm and we had reserved spots under the Minter Ellison (paid $5 a day for that, salary deduction). Finance had spots which I assume were for SES. There’s parking under Communications, too, don’t know if SES or other staff have access to that. PM&C have some kind of under-building parking but I don’t know the details of who gets to use it.

Free underground parking?

What is this magical place? Department of the Lollipop Kingdom???

I believe the ATO had previously provided some sort of concession or waiver of the FBT to a couple of Departments in the Forrest/Barton/Parkes area – this makes sense when one considers that the they’d be robbing Peter to pay Paul. I believe, howeer, that this was not supposed to be a long term deal.

It’s also my understanding that this issue actually arose when Hotel Realm opened a couple of years ago – this isn’t solely about the boom-gated park on Blackall St, although it made it a bit more real for heaps of people.

Pay parking in the triangle is inevitable. I don’t work in the Triangle, but I still reckon it’s a bad idea – from attracting tourists to our National Institutions to suckerpunching people for revenue without the added advantage of access to the shops/banks/services that one would expect in a town centre (where it’s appropriate to pay).

And I don’t care about what’s “fair and equitable” – if someone doesn’t like paying for parking in their current job then negotiate for a pay-rise or parking costs, find a cheaper way to get to work or vote with your feet. There seems to be a mentality that people in the Triangle ought to pay for parking solely because other people do – personally I can’t understand that.

Most Parliamentary Triangle spots are public car parks, not triggering any FBT implications.

SES and other staff who are allocated spots have an FBT implication that is generally absorbed by the Departments as part of the SES remuneration package.

hairy nosed wombat said :

If the local car parks within one kilometre is charging less than $7.46 per day, then there are no FBT payments to be made, as this is the payment threshold

Links to the ATO pages with the car parking laws and the threshold amount.

I checked back and it’s actually $8 a day in the paid car park, not $7. This would seem to put it above the threshold.

If the local car parks within one kilometre is charging less than $7.46 per day, then there are no FBT payments to be made, as this is the payment threshold

Links to the ATO pages with the car parking laws and the threshold amount.

not Finance as I don’t get anything back!

This was something that I was wondering about a few months back, when the $7 a day car park opened in Barton. If reports at the time were correct, this should have opened up a number of government departments to FBT liability for the free parking they provide, but I’m yet to hear of any of them passing the cost on to their employees. Not sure whether this is because no liability exists, or because they’ve just quietly absorbed the cost.